City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (“Salem ZBA”) was held on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 in the third floor conference room of 120 Washington St., Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Acting Chair Mike Duffy opens the meeting at 6:34 p.m.
Roll Call
Those present were: Mike Duffy (Acting Chair), Tom Watkins, Richard Dionne, and David Eppley (Alternate)
Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, and Dana Menon, Staff Planner.
Approval of Minutes
September 19, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
Mr. Eppley pointed out various non-substantive typographical errors in the draft minutes.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Dionne) and none (0) opposed.
Mr. Duffy notes that only four Board Members are present, so any vote would require an affirmative vote by all four members in order to be approved. Mr. Duffy announces that the Petitioner for 13 Cherry Hill Avenue has requested that the petition be continued to the next meeting, so that it may be heard by a full board. The next meeting will be held on November 20, 2013 at 6:30pm.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to continue 13 Cherry Hill Avenue to November 20, 2013 with no evidence taken, seconded by Mr. Dionne. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Dionne) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Mr. Duffy clarified to members of the public that the public hearing on this matter has been continued, so no further input will be taken at this time. He then introduced the next item on the agenda.
Public Hearing: petition of MARC TRANOS requesting Variances under Section 5.1 Off-Street Parking of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to grant relief from: the maximum allowed entrance and exit drive width of 20 feet, prohibition of parking spaces within 5 feet of the street line, and encroachment upon the required 2 foot minimum setback of a parking lot and associated entrance and exit drives from all lot lines for the property located at 47 MEMORIAL DRIVE (R1 Zoning District).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 9/25/2013 and accompanying materials
- Site plan titled “Plot Plan for Tranos Residence at 47 Memorial Drive, Salem, MA” by Native Landscapes, dated 9/23/2013
2005 Google Earth aerial image of 47 Memorial Drive and surrounds
2008 Google Earth aerial image of 47 Memorial Drive and surrounds
Portion of topographical map showing 47 Memorial Drive area, submitted at the meeting
- 2010 Google Earth aerial image of 47 Memorial Drive and surrounds, submitted at the meeting
Mr. Tranos presents the petition. He explains that due to the topography of the site, rain water flows downhill across the street and into the front yard of 47 Memorial Drive, where it has eroded the front yard and created a basin. There is negative pitch from the back of the sidewalk along Memorial Drive toward the house. The rain water collects in the basin, against the side of the house, and it seeps through the foundation. Mr. Tranos spoke with various professionals (a foundation waterproofer and a mason), about correcting this situation. He was advised to raise the height of the front yard, so that the pitch of the yard would direct the stormwater back toward the street and into the storm drain. He was also advised that putting an impermeable surface in the area would further prevent stormwater
intrusion into the foundation. Noting the small area for parking, he was advised to make the area into a circular driveway. Mr. Tranos consulted with the Building Inspector, Mr. St. Pierre, who stated that as far as he knew, Mr. Tranos’ proposed project could be completed without seeking zoning relief.
Mr. Tranos references the 2010 Google Earth aerial image submitted at the hearing, to illustrate that 9 of the 20 houses around his property (47 Memorial Drive) have cars parked within 5 feet of the street.
Mr. Tranos notes that the original driveway at the property was 20 feet, as the property shares a contiguous driveway with the neighbor. This condition has existed for about 20 years. Mr. Tranos references the 2008 Google Earth aerial image (submitted with the application) to illustrate that the neighbor across the street has a 30-foot wide driveway curb cut.
Mr. Tranos notes that the shared driveway with his neighbor, Mr. Marfongelli, at 49 Memorial Drive (east abutter), has existed for at least 20 years, as confirmed with Mr. Marfongelli. When Mr. Tranos installed the new circular driveway, he left a small strip of gravel to allow any runoff from his new circular driveway to infiltrate through the gravel, rather than run across into Mr. Marfongelli’s property.
Mr. St. Pierre confirms that Mr. Tranos consulted with him. When Mr. Tranos called, Mr. St. Pierre was unable to find the off-street parking regulations in the re-codified Zoning Code, so Mr. St. Pierre believed that they had been omitted in the updated Zoning Code.
Mr. Duffy opens up the issue for public comment.
Mr. Tony Marfongelli, 49 Memorial Drive asks if there will be any changes to what has already been constructed.
Mr. Tranos replies that he will extend the driveway on the side adjacent to 45 Memorial Drive, to go up to 2 feet from the property boundary on that side, in order to make it easier to turn in the driveway. Currently the drive only extends to within 3.3 feet of that boundary, but now that he knows that 2 feet is permitted, he will extend the drive to that point.
Ms. Linda Morin, 44 Memorial Drive – saw the sidewalk and tree roots being torn up, without any notice to, or input from, the abutters. Even though the mason and the Building Inspector told Mr. Tranos that they thought the work was OK, people still have to follow the rules. Ms. Morin’s concerns are aesthetics and snow removal – will the snow be plowed around the new circular driveway and onto her property?
Ms. Kimberly Smith, 45 Memorial Drive – main concern is that the minimum 2-foot setback is maintained between the applicant’s driveway and her property. Also concerned about the drainage – now that the area has been re-graded, and the area has been changed from grass to pavers, will additional runoff wind up on their property?
Mr. St. Pierre states that per City ordinance, you are not allowed to push snow off of your property, and you are not permitted to push windrow off of your property. The City does enforce this.
Mr. Tranos states that the neighbor’s concerns are valid. He will likely shovel the driveway rather than plow it, so as not to damage the pavers. He will put the snow on the horseshoe in the center of the driveway. He has spoken with Ms. Smith about drainage, and they have agreed to watch the situation. Nothing is being changed on Mr. Marfongelli’s side. Mr. Tranos states that he has made a significant financial investment in the project, based on his conversation with Mr. St. Pierre and his understanding that he would be able to construct the driveway.
Mr. St. Pierre also notes that he has a curb removal permit on his desk, which was submitted after-the-fact. He has been holding it pending the outcome of this hearing.
Ms. Morin states that when she called the City to inquire about the project, no one could find a curb removal permit for the project.
Mr. Tranos has put sod and pea stone around parts of the new driveway (near the property line along 45 Memorial Drive) to help absorb any additional runoff.
Mr. Tsitsinos notes that he visited the property, and saw that there is a little wall around the back of the driveway.
Mr. Tranos replies that he installed that to help raise the elevation, to gain positive pitch from the front of the house towards the street.
Mr. Duffy states that there are conditions that create hardship, specifically: erosion has created a condition such that the front yard traps stormwater, and this stormwater intrudes into the basement of the home. The homeowner has sought advice from various professionals to solve the problem. The described work does not nullify or substantially derogate from the purpose of the ordinance. Mr. Duffy thanks the abutters for attending and commenting on the fact that the work and the seeking of approvals were done in the wrong order. He further notes that while there was a mistake made in the advice given to the applicant by the Building Inspector, but everyone is charged with having knowledge of the City codes. You should consult the City, but have your own council to advise you. The conditions for
obtaining the requested Variances have been met.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Watkins moves to approve the petition with 2 standard conditions, seconded by Mr. Tsitsinos. The vote was unanimous with four (4) in favor (Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Tsitsinos, and Mr. Dionne) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Adjournment
Motion and Vote: Mr. Tsitsinos moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Dionne and unanimously approved 4-0. The meeting adjourns at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Menon, Staff Planner
Approved by the Board of Appeals 11/20/2013
| 
